Skip to main content

About your Search

20120928
20121006
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27
then the foreign policy. but we interviewed most of the women in the book. on the senate of foreign relations committee. but standing next to the generals and elizabeth dole said it almost wrecked my car after the iowa straw poll when elizabeth did well. they had around to it -- roundtable the next morning to talk about her surprising strong finish but she was there a lot with her husband was there. she has no commander-in-chief background. what has she done? i almost wrecked my car at that point*. >> women have to worry about being too feminine. either way they go there are problems. men have to worry about appearing to feminine but no one will say he is too masculine. it is a lot more complicated. but to be more aggressive to be labeled in some way. there are barriers that where they are caught were men are free to move. >> also those surrogates elizabeth dole was a good example she had her own plane and crisscross the country by have not seen the male spouse at the caliber of the women we have had. it is fair to say bill clinton was hillary clinton's best ally and worst detractor. also bob
interested in foreign policy and even issues like the defense budget? and that's why issues like that and the onces we don't know about that make me wary of all these straight line projections we're make in the future based on what things look like right now. >> anyone want to address the point? >> which point? >> the point about . >> pick on any of the points. i meant the point about iran and the likely hood we would enter in to military action there regardless of who wins. [inaudible] >> question from the audience? >> yes, sir. front row. >> microphone approaching you from the left. governor romney said he wants to create 12 million jobs during his term, that's 250,000 jobs a month. in the past, the u.s. has always been an exporter. and that was what created jobs. how do you see his promise of creating 12 million jobs in four years? >> unlikely. [laughter] >> okay. that's one view. anybody want to elaborate on that? >> look, i think we are in a completely different, you know, job market. we're about -- a few weeks during the convention which is bill clinton lineback in 1990 if
d date will focus on foreign policy. earlier this week the carnegie endowment for peace posted a discussion on the president's role in leading foreign policy. they talked about challenges facing the u.s. including american influence and engagement globally, the changing international order and emerging nations. two of the featured panelists included thomas friedman, "new york times" foreign affairs columnist and author of "the world is flat." and jessica mathews, carnegie president and director of national security office of global issues. >> good evening. my name is david rothkopf, and i will be the moderator for this evening. in the carnegie endowment discussion about how should the next american president engage the world. this is a debate format discussion. we have a terrific group of panelists here. starting on the far right we have professor john ikenberry of princeton. next is tom friedman of the new york times. next to him is our own jessica matthews of the carnegie endowment, and beside jessica is bob kagan at the brookings institution and we are going to cover several
to say that a rule of foreign policy that i like to follow that i believe should be followed is getting your objective straight before you start haggling about the details. we had no choice. now every generation since then was a great reform and i cannot think of another country where you could definitely say that the evolution that we have seen in the last 30 years depended on one man. i actually met no other chinese who had the vision and the courage to move them into the international system and engage in reform and institute a market system. the next leader came into office in the aftermath of tien an -- tiennanman restoring china to the international system and making china part of the globalist system. hu jintao is the first leader bachelet to operate a china expert of a globalist system. with each generation, the style of leadership has become less personal. that is mao was treated reverentially almost as a deity. the appointments were never scheduled because of his health but he was suddenly called out of the meeting and taken to mao without advanced warning and without it ever
up with several points. one of them spoke to foreign policy. touched a little at the beginning but how do you describe your foreign policy? how should america face or approach the world? >> guest: well, just that we shouldn't involve ourselves diplomatically. we should be the shining beacon on the hill. but our military interventions, would we're going in and determining -- we're replacing one dictator for another dictator? foreign aid is money spent on dictators in foreign governments. it's not spent on people in other countries. it's spent on propping up other governments. here we are funding funding fune insurgents in syria, and a quart of the insurgents are supposed to be al qaeda? didn't we do this in afghanistan? didn't we really ultimately bank role osama bin laden? we haven't learned anything. what we aught -- ought to have learned is military interventions make enemies to the united states of people that are affected by these. these drone strikes? yeah, we hit the target but we wipe out another quarter block. we kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians living in th
of staff to vice president quayle and secretary of education bill bennett. he also served as foreign policy adviser to senator john mccain. i'm sure all of you see built regularly on "fox news sunday" and the fox news channel. i actually met bill in 1981 when he was a very young, assistant professor at the university of pennsylvania. it's been great to see all the things he has accomplished since that time. so the questions i'd like to pose for each of you come and i'll start with governor huntsman, what does the 2012 election reveal about the respected leadership styles of obama and romney? >> probably not much at this point. >> well, this panel is over. [laughter] >> see you later. >> so you can extrapolate a few things from president obama's first term that might be instructive. he isn't a manager. he is not come he doesn't have a history of managing things, so you bring in a lot of good well-trained smart people, given the tasks and you try to lead a government. and in the case of governor romney, who has been a governor, who is a business guy, he's run the olympics. i think his attitud
for foreign policy analysis. i wonder if the new leadership in china and the relatively new leadership in north korea provide us with opportunities whether we can create opportunities for the cooperation and engagement. >> i think for china that is definitely the case. obviously that is not new leadership either to china or to us. many of those individuals we have known and worked with in the past and they have all indicated not only their willingness to their desire to continue to develop this relationship in a positive way economically, politically, but for us in the defense department and in the security cents. in the north -- north korea we will have to see. we have remained very concerned about so many dimensions, and that is one of the reasons why we are so intent upon solidifying our posture, and that's the reason why we are looking at a number of steps in korea but i'm sure you are familiar with but i will remind you of what is going on. there we are making our presence, particularly the ground force presence putting it on a more permanent basis and more solid basis. that is wh
hours before we had to leave. i mentioned it only to say that a rule of foreign policy or diplomacy that i like to follow and that i believe should be followed is get your objectives straight before you start haggling about details. now, we had no choice. now, every generation since then then -- [inaudible] was a great reformer, and i cannot think of any other country where you can so definitely can say that the evolution that we have seen in the last 30 years depended on the vision of one man. as in the case of -- [inaudible] i certainly met no other chinese who had the vision and the courage to move china into the international system and to engage in reform and in instituting a market system. the next leader came into office in the aftermath of tiananmen, and he'd spent the better part of his 12 years in the office restoring china to the international system and making china part of a genuinely globalized system. hu jintao is the third leader that actually had to operate a china as part of a globalized system. with each generation the style of leadership has become less personal.
themselves in foreign policy, because they are not yet in office. but there have been instances where people, where he felt, china was being criticized, and he made a very sharp response. i've had several conversations with xi and i found him an extraordinary thoughtful person who raised a number of philosophical questions. the problem they face is, if you look at their own agenda, the things they have stated, they want to do for the next 10 years, you know china will have to go to change it. i think it's unlikely in 10 years the next generation will come into office with exactly the same institutions that exist today. and precisely because everybody knows in china there is a kind of political evolution being discussed every day. this is one reason why i do not believe that great foreign adventures or confrontations with the united states can be gone their agenda. they know that domestic changes, in the sense of moving part of the population, overcoming the country in which the coast is highly developed and the interior quite undeveloped, in terms of you cannot keep a society -- [inaudible]
and will focus entirely on foreign policy. cbs face the nation host, bob schiefer moderates. >> we need to tackle our nation's challenges before they tackle us. we need to save and strengthen medicare and social security and we're putting the ideas on the table how to do that. we're not going to try to scare seniors. we'll save these benefits for seniors and for my generation so these promises are kept. >> they have laid out clearly, they say, that what barack obama and joe biden did they have endangered medicare. they have stole money from medicare and they have done it to get obamacare and all this. and you see it in the ads and hear it in everything they say. nothing could be further from the truth. >> next thursday night, october 11th, congressman paul ryan and vice president joe biden will face off in their only debate. abc news's martha radditz moderates from center college in danville, kentucky. you can watch and engage with c-span in the live debate preview at 7:00 p.m. iron and following the debate at 9:00. e-mails, calls and tweets at 10:30. c-span radio and c-span online at c-span.org.
is that i'm professor of american foreign policy at the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies in washington. we teach graduate students. i have wonderful students from all over the world. students come from all over the world to study here because this is america, and they know that there is something special about america, and we wrote this book to try to make sure that in the future, students from all over the world and people and entrepreneurs and immigrants from all over the world will continue to come here, that this will remain a special place. >> host: tom, is, of course, the "new york times" columnist, pulitzer prize winner three times. how did you team up? >> guest: we're old friends and neighbors and we called each other and talked about the world, but we noticed something in recent years. we started talking about the world, but we ended every day talking about america. it was apparent to us that america, its future and vitality is the biggest foreign policy issue in the world. that's how we wrote the book together. >> host: "that used to be us" is the name o
. the only foreign policy he has succeeded at killing bin laden. >> host: i also think that president obama has actually been on the same page where americans are in terms of iraq, drawing down, but as you said, that's not what a leader does. >> guest: we need to select in the side. we have a crisis in europe which can affect us. the crisis of the dollar, the jobless priceless here. there are a lot of causes the president had picked up would resonate with the public instead of taking obscure bits from the progressive wishlist like health care reform. >> host: we have only a few minutes left. tell us about your biggest conclusions and what you might do next. >> guest: this book was -- when you write a book coming to enter big questions. you're going to play detective for a year or so. you want to spend some time really thinking about this. this came as a great surprise me. i was expecting to find something very different. i was expecting to find a much more determined leader, someone who indicates a new generation in american politics. if you look at the debates in 2008 between john mccain a
transitional government to devise his foreign policy, hopefully in consultation with the transitional democratic parliament. so this is really not our area. this is not our task, but a future democratic government. >> i am a student at georgetown university and my question is, have you considered the idea, sort of the idea that accountabilities could cause members of the regime are individuals or groups assist it with the regime to prolong power or to hold onto power for a longer period of time? and have you considered the idea of pardons and weigh that against the benefits of ending the conflict may be earlier. >> this has been quite sensitive because some syrians feel that they want to actually bring these people who have to be responsible for bloodshed and corruption to be really tiny on 10 trying. on the other hand coming out the the pragmatic, political needs the syrians have to face. so we recommend -- we shared to create someone a kind of combination of both conditional amnesty and also laceration embedding in a completely baathification as my colleague said. and to also create
about the issue of presidential power with regard to foreign policy, military policy but let me say my primary interest in the book and my remarks this evening is more domestic policy and the extent to which elections do or do not bring us close to resolving important issues of domestic public policy. for the older members of this audience there have been at least one election that did fundamentally change america and that is 1954. a mere 48 years ago, when all of the stars were aligned and not only to create a landslide victory for president lyndon johnson, richard nixon got a landslide victory in 1972, but a landslide democratic majority in the house and senate and let us not forget a supreme court of the united states that was still fairly and the control of liberal democrats. 4 two brief shining years or perhaps baleful years if you don't like the great society but for two years for better or for worse the united states had a government in the way that we often seek of her majesty, having a government that is a group of people who can implement a party platform that can be judged a
anything wrong with it. on issue after issue, foreign policy or anything else, we divide into these parties. first of all, there is nothing in the constitution that creates political parties and nothing that creates political primaries and allows political parties and party bosses and legislatures to talk congressional district lines. let me talk a little bit about that. because by identifying what the problem is, you can see where the solution is. and i do believe that our solutions are there. very quickly, let me talk about the primary system. you know, a lot of you in this room, there are a lot of you i don't know, but i know something about everybody in this room. you all believe that when you go to the store and you buy a cell phone, when you buy a book, you want choice. that is what we are. we want choice and things that we get and did things that we think and do things that we really want choice is for. the only place where we have devised a system to stifle choice is in selecting the people who are going to decide whether to go to war, when our taxes are going to be, what programs w
reach its foreign policy goals while under the wing of the united states which he says count always have israel's -- doesn't always have israel's best interests at heart. this is just under an hour. [applause] >> shalom, good evening, everybody. it is my pleasure to be here with you, especially when you have such great weather in washington. almost like jerusalem at this time of the year. i am very happy to see so many people coming and showing an interest in my book, and i would like in the next 20 minutes to share with you not what you're going to read in the book, but what's behind the ideas. but first i want to think we all can agree that's what's happening in israel is important to the people who live in the united states of america. why? because we share the same values, the same principles, the same heritage and the same enemies. and because we are in the middle east today being attacked, so you have to ask yourself why those people are against the jewish nation in the middle east. the arab against israel not because of the land that we so-called occupied. we are being attacked be
to say that a rule of foreign policy, or diplomacy that i like to follow, that i believe should be followed, is get your objective straight before you start haggling about details. we had no choice. now, every generation since th then, was a great reform. and i cannot think of any other country where you could so definitely say that the evolution that we've seen in the last 30 years depend on the origin of one man, as the case. i certainly meant no other chinese who had the vision and the courage to move china into an international system, and to engage in reform and in instituting a market system. and the next leader came into office in the aftermath of tiananmen, and he spent the better part of his 12 years in office restoring china into the international system, and making china part of a genuine globalized system. hu jintao is the third leader that actually had to cover a china as part of a globalized system. with each generation, the style of leadership has become less personal. that is, mao was treated preferentially, almost as a d.o.e. appointment with mao whenever schedu
't usually want to be boxed in on foreign policy. it was a rather tight commitment that mitt romney made with a donor nodding in the front row. i was troubled by that as if he makes a commitment to end investigations against edelson. i had an argument with mine, is he more interested in destroying unions or supporting, you know, he has other priorities as well. i don't think it matters. i don't think the rules have to be that clear. the rules are you want to create a structure where elected officials are not wholly dependent on a given -- not largely dependent on a given donor. one of the principles i always use is you want them to be in a situation where if they're in office and that donor comes back and says i really want x, y, z, the elected official can say, as senator mccain famously did, get out of my office. and if you can't because that money is fundamentally important to your campaign, you have a problem. and that's the case for rules. >> so there i would make the republican plea for judicial modesty and say, look, this is complicated. the discussion we've had indicates there's
for calling on me. eric mcsaiden, institute for foreign be policy analysis. i wonder if the new leadership in china and the relatively new leadership in north korea provide us with some opportunities, whether we can create opportunities for further cooperation and engagement. >> well, i think for china that is definitely the case. obviously, that's not new leadership either to china or to us. many of those individuals we've known, we've worked with in the past, and they've all indicated their, not only their willingness, but their desire to continue to develop this relationship in a positive way. economically, politically, but for us in the defense department, in a security sense. in north korea we'll have to see. we remain concerned about so many dimensions of north korea, and that's one of the reasons why we're so intent upon solidifying our posture there. and, um, that's the reason why we're looking at, um, a number of steps in korea that i'm sure you're familiar with, but i'll just remind you of what's going on there. we are making our presence there, particularly our ground force pres
there as well. the united states foreign policy towards the persian gulf has for decades focused squarely on ensuring the free flow of oil from the gulf to the aborted and the soviet union but in recent decades. our concern to the region has embroiled us in the two wars in the past 20 years and led to a significant military commitment of military assets in the region and the question arises almost immediately why does the united states expand such efforts and so much of its assets. we are in fact a number three we'll producer in the world and when we import less than 20% of our crude imports from the gulf. so these issues we are going to explores the global energy market, the changing place changing is the persian gulf oil and gas still important and likely to be in the future where the shiastan index in the immediate region when the impact on the region's ability to produce. we have the very distinguished panelists. on my right, dr. jean-francois seznec currently adjunct professor at georgetown university. and for the previous ten years, dr. seznec was visiting professor of georgetown un
debate is october 22 from lynn university in florida, and the questions turn to foreign policy. live on c-span, c-span radio, and also online at c-span.org. up next, a discussion on the health care law presidential candidate mitt romney signed into law in 2006 when he was governor of massachusetts from this morning's "washington journal." >> host: a reporter of the "boston herald" talking about the health care bill mitt romney signed in 2006. thank you for joining us. >> guest: good morning. >> host: give us the basics, first of all, back in time to the debate happening in massachusetts. what was governor romney's role in getting the health care law pushed and signed? was he the one who initiated the process? >> guest: it was a massive bipartisan effort, involved politicians, business leaders, small business owners, but he was the governor at the time, and he was the one who effectively signed it into law, and as a backdrop, which probably everybody here knows pretty well, we, as a nation, are dealing with ever increasing health care costs, and as the health care costs go up, we're also d
foreign policy, hopefully in consultation with the transitional democratic group. so this is really not our area, not our past, but that of a future democratic government. >> by nina cirino said, i am a student at georgetown university and my question is, have you considered the idea that, sort of the idea that accountability could cause members of the regime for individuals and groups associated with the regime to prolong power or to hold onto power for a longer period of time? have you considered the idea of certain groups and weigh that against the benefits of ending the conflict may be earlier? >> this issue has been quite sensitive because some syrians feel they want to actually bring these people who have been responsible for bloodshed and corruption to be really tried and made accountable. on the other hand, you have that pragmatic political need at the syrians have to face. so we recommend we tried to create somewhat a kind of combination of both conditional amnesty and also frustration and venting, rather than a complete detoxification, which my colleague here said and to a
. >> another foreign policy question, senator, you have criticized senator men mendes -- quote, when the mission is complete, we will bring the troops home. and you defined the mission as disables al qaeda and disables the taliban. the taliban are at least sub bornly persistent. are you prepared to see u.s. troops stay indefinite nately. >> i said at this point i agree with the timeline. we want to bring the men and women back home. what trouble -- what troubles me is that when we make decisions for political purposes. perhaps for election purposes, and i'm not sure that flagging our intentions to put out definitely time lines was and would be the smartest answer. you have people that want to do us harm. you have the taliban there think about human beings differently than we do. we know about the atrocity to women. and so what we haven't done a good enough job is inning the educating our country about the bad guys that exist that we need to meet them offshore before they come on shore. it's only been ten years and a little more. since 9/11. >> moderator: your response, sir. menendez:
generations. it's become a national security issue and a foreign policy issue. what specific steps do you propose the united states take to get out of debt or at least make our interest payment issue to live with? berkley: all right, look, we have to get our debt under control, and wasteful spending. and this is the way we do it. the first thing we do is stop giving tax breaks to corporations that are shipping our jobs overseas. my opponent voted five times for the. we've got to stop giving big oil tax subsidy. they don't need. the big guys don't need. people of the state of nevada need to help, the wall street, not wall street corporations. and then after we do that we can make nevada and this country for clean energy jobs capital of the world so we can be generating good paying jobs. you want to get down our debt? let's get people back to work so they're paying taxes. and another thing we can do when it comes to our debt is to pass a balanced budget amendment. and let me tell you what that does. i want to pass a balanced budget amendment but i'm not going to pass an amendment, i'm not g
beyond rhetoric and extend to their thinking about domestic and foreign policy which is what we are talking about this morning. next is a call from janice in louisiana. a democrat. good morning. >> caller: hello. yes, i would like the government to [inaudible] >> host: janice, are you still there? we lost her. apologies. let's move on to gary in eaton ohio. independent. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i think -- i feel that the constitution is there to tell the government what they are supposed to do. and like the guy that brought up water, the epa puts fluoride, they tell you have to have so much fluoride in water. there's something that it's in rat poison and that is why they're having to put so much of it in the water. now they've done a good job training at to water, but the deal is we don't get the news. the news is blocked. just like i ran that thing, the spring in iraq and iran and libya and everywhere that wasn't caused by a movie. it's all blow back and they are lying to the american people about. we can't get the news that we need to be donald man. i've got noth
configuration may not be understood. or the risk of leaked intellectual property to foreign businesses and governments. when it comes to articulating the failure of policy on the subject, particularly as a relate its to cyberspace. one look no further than the panel that is here with me today to give you a sense of the potential devastating consequencingses. the second key feature is linked to the one i described is the the increasingly many of the segments vital to defense are commercial in nature. this is a threand department the is frankly more willing to recognize in policy than in practice. i would hasrd a to guess 25 years ago, nearly 70% of the defense the department procured were developmented and produced for the develop. today, i would suggest that the ratio has reversed with roughly 70 percent of the goods and services now either produced for commercial consumption or originally developed with commercial applications in mind as well as a largely commercial base supply chain. this is a very difficult concept for many in our business to get they're their arms around. frankly t
. as well as the risk of leak intellectual property to foreign business and government. when it comes to articulating the real-world risks of a failed to defend a policy on the subject, particularly as it relates to cyberspace, one look no further than the panel that is here with me today to give you a sense of the potential devastating conflict. the second key feature is linked to the one i just described is increasing and many of our segments vital to this segment are commercial in nature. will rely upon commercial design components. this is a transit department is frankly been more willing to recognize in policy than in practice. i would hazard to guess that 25 years ago nearly 70% of the goods and services the department prepared what he felt exclusively for the department. today, i would suggest that the racial has reversed with roughly 70% of the goods and services now i to produce for commercial consumption or originally developed for a commercial application in mind. as was a largely commercial base supply chain. this is a very difficult concept for many and a business to get
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27